Get key metrics and ratios

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that metrics are computed from SEC filings, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, data limitations, or response variability, leaving the baseline at 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences contain the full purpose and use case with no filler. The metric list is dense but informative, and the 'best single call' positioning earns its place by orienting the agent immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only metrics tool, the description covers what is computed and when to use it, aided by thorough parameter schemas and annotations. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact output shape could help, but the response_format parameter and metric enumeration make it adequate for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (company, period, max_periods, response_format) already has a clear description in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Compute key metrics from SEC filings', and enumerates the exact metrics returned. It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to distinguish itself from, but the list plus 'quick fundamental overview' makes its role clear relative to raw statement retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Best single call for a quick fundamental overview of a company' gives a clear when-to-use context. It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming alternatives, so it lacks the explicit exclusion criteria that would earn a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.